Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. The General Diary of Kodenchery Police Station, which contains the entries on 23.02.2009, was seized by P.W.20, while he was working as the C.I. of Thamarassery, on 05.03.200, as per Ext.P8 Seizure Mahazar. The General Diary (Ext.P9) was identified by him. The relevant entry referring to the incident occurred on 23.02.2009 was separately marked as Ext.P9(a). The witness added that there was a mistake in recording the date showing it as '23.02.2008', which actually was '23.02.2009'. In the cross examination, the witness stated he was not aware that the appellant/accused was having any mental ailments at that time or even before. In support of the defence case with reference to Section 84 of the IPC, the senior Consultant of the Govt. Mental Health Centre , Kozhikode was examined as D.W.1 from the part of the defence. The said witness deposed that the appellant/accused was treated as an inpatient in the hospital from 18.08.2002 to 10.10.2002 and thereafter from 11.04.2009 to 16.07.2010. The witness stated that as per the treatment records, the patient was suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia; that the disease was under control when the patient was under treatment; that continuous medication was CRL.APPEAL No.1006 OF 2011 required; that during 2002, the patient was brought to the hospital by his father and elder brother; whereas in 2009, he was brought to the hospital by the escort police from the District Jail. The medical records were marked as Exts.D2 to D4. It was stated that the patient was attending the Out Patient Department of the hospital periodically after 18.08.2002. Initially he used to attend the O.P. once in a week and afterwards, once in four weeks and thereafter, once in two months, after 2002. The patient had attended the O.P. on 28.01.2009 and that the patient had shown much improvement on that day. It was also stated in the cross examination that the reduction in quantity of dosage of medicine indicated that the patient was showing improvement.

21. Coming to the case set up by the appellant for granting the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC, D.W.1-Doctor has deposed that the appellant/accused was having 'Paranoid Schizophrenia' and that he had availed treatment in the year 2002. As discussed already, regular check up was being conducted; illness was quite under control and the appellant was leading normal life. The Doctor also deposed that the reduced extent of medicines being administered was a sign of substantial improvement. The appellant was brought to the hospital only later on 11.04.2009 escorted by the Police, while he was in custody. The version given by the appellant/accused, that he was having doubts on the chastity of his wife, was stated as recorded in the medical records. Absolutely no instance of any aggravation or excess on the part of the appellant/accused was pointed out by any of the witnesses examined before this Court, including his parents, siblings or such other persons. It is CRL.APPEAL No.1006 OF 2011 brought out in evidence that the appellant/accused was leading a normal life, eking out his livelihood as a rubber tapper. It has also been brought on record that the appellant/ accused had constructed a house of his own in a nearby locality; that the marriage with the deceased was conducted a few months back; that he used to take the deceased to the nearby Anganwadi where she was working and to bring her back and that he himself had gone to the maternal residence of the deceased on the previous day, to bring her back.

25. It is brought out in defence evidence that the appellant/accused was treated for 'Paranoid Schizophrenia' in the year 2002 and was continuing on medicines. Characteristics of the disease, 'Paranoid Schizophrenia' have been explained in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 25th Edition in the following words:

CRL.APPEAL No.1006 OF 2011 Paranoid Schizophrenia, in the vast majority of cases, starts in the fourth decade and develops insidiously. Suspiciousness is the characteristic symptom of the early stage. Ideas of reference occur,, which gradually develop into delusions of persecution. Auditory hallucinations follow which in the beginning, start as sounds or noises in the ears, but later change into abuses or insults. Delusions are at first indefinite, but gradually they become fixed and definite, to lead the patient to believe that he is persecuted by some unknown person or some superhuman agency. He believes that his food is being poisoned, some noxious gases are blown into his room, and people are plotting against him to ruin him. Disturbances of general sensation give rise to hallucinations, which are attributed to the effects of hypnotism, electricity, wireless telegraphy or atomic agencies,. The patient gets very irritated and excited owing to these painful and disagreeable hallucinations and delusions.
Placing reliance on the verdicts passed by the Apex Court at different points of time, it was reiterated by the Apex Court in Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra [(2002)7 SCC 748] that the burden of proving the existence of the circumstance bringing the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC lies upon the accused, and that by virtue of the mandate under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court shall presume absence of such circumstances. In Hari Singh Gond vs. State of M.P.[2008(3) KLT 969], the Apex Court made it clear that under Section 84 of the IPC, a Court is concerned only with 'legal insanity' and not 'medical insanity'. The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of Section 84 should be given or not is the material time, when the offence takes place and such benefit will be available only if it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such infirmity. The burden of proof rests, as already held by the Apex Court, on the accused; which can be traced to Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, under which provision, the Court shall presume absence of such circumstance. It was CRL.APPEAL No.1006 OF 2011 also made clear by the Apex Court that, the mere fact that the accused was conceited/odd irascible or that his brain was not quite alright or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity at short intervals cannot be sufficient to attract application of the provision. A person can be exonerated from the liability for doing an act on the ground of 'unsoundness of mind' under Section 84 IPC, only if he, at the time of doing the act, was either incapable of knowing (a) the nature of the act or (b) that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. In Sudhakaran vs. State of Kerala [(2010)10 SCC 582] , the Apex Court reiterated that the burden of proof is to be discharged by the accused, to claim the benefit of Section 84 . The Apex Court held that the accused would have to prove that his cognitive faculties were so impaired at the time when the crime was committed, as not to know the nature of the act, incapable of understanding the nature of consequence of the act performed by him. It was also a case where the accused had murdered his wife, by assaulting her with a chopper on her neck in the bed room of the house, for allegedly cheating him. Based on the evidence adduced, the Court held that the Trial Court and the CRL.APPEAL No.1006 OF 2011 Appellate Court had correctly concluded that circumstances would lead only to the conclusion that the appellant had committed murder of his wife. The plea taken in the said case was also with reference to 'Paranoid Schizophrenia'. After referring to the nature of illness, the characteristics and the consequences with reference to the relevant features as explained in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (25th edition), the Court explained the standard of proof required to be discharged by the party who seeks for the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC.